BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Political Commentator Tax Cut Debate

Expert replies
by YellowSapphire » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:27 pm
Political Commentator: During the previous presidential administration, members of congress approved large tax cuts and yet the economy today stands in shambles. During the current economic crisis, those who espouse large tax cuts as an economic stimulus should consider the failure of tax cuts during the past eight years to prevent the current economic recession as conclusive evidence that tax cuts will not help the country escape from its current economic troubles.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?

A) The large tax cuts of the past administration targeted the capital gains on the financial investments of the ultra-rich while proponents of tax cuts today suggest cutting payroll taxes for both employers and employees.
B) Economists from across the spectrum now agree that tax cuts helped stem the country's most severe recession in history, which occurred about 70 years ago prior to industrialization in this country.
C) Economists from across the spectrum predict that if Congress fails to pass the tax-cut legislation, which also includes government spending and much more, it could well be 15 years before the economy escapes the current recession.
D) Economists from across the spectrum agree that these tax cuts will add less to the fiscal deficit than the tax cuts of the previous administration.
E) During the most recent political campaign cycle, which featured many deceptive political attacks, the governor of a prosperous state attacked those who opposed tax cuts by citing his own state's ostensible prosperity.

OA: A

the failure of the past administration's tax cuts to prevent the economic recession => Reason
tax cuts will not help the country escape from its current economic troubles => Conclusion

tax cut => means common people have to pay less tax. Is it right?

Can someone explain it? I don't understand what this is the answer.
Yellow Sapphire
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by outreach » Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:53 am
tax cuts employed by the previous regime to the one by current regime are different. hence same consequence cannot be assumed
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Join the discussion

by reply2spg » Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:42 am
While weakening or strengthening questions, some times it is good to avoid opinions or agreements of expert. However, we should at least read those options.

In this Q, B, C and D are just opinions or agreements of economists. These opinions or agreements are not concrete evidences to weaken or strengthen any argument.

Here A is the best option.
YellowSapphire wrote:Political Commentator: During the previous presidential administration, members of congress approved large tax cuts and yet the economy today stands in shambles. During the current economic crisis, those who espouse large tax cuts as an economic stimulus should consider the failure of tax cuts during the past eight years to prevent the current economic recession as conclusive evidence that tax cuts will not help the country escape from its current economic troubles.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?

A) The large tax cuts of the past administration targeted the capital gains on the financial investments of the ultra-rich while proponents of tax cuts today suggest cutting payroll taxes for both employers and employees.
B) Economists from across the spectrum now agree that tax cuts helped stem the country's most severe recession in history, which occurred about 70 years ago prior to industrialization in this country.
C) Economists from across the spectrum predict that if Congress fails to pass the tax-cut legislation, which also includes government spending and much more, it could well be 15 years before the economy escapes the current recession.
D) Economists from across the spectrum agree that these tax cuts will add less to the fiscal deficit than the tax cuts of the previous administration.
E) During the most recent political campaign cycle, which featured many deceptive political attacks, the governor of a prosperous state attacked those who opposed tax cuts by citing his own state's ostensible prosperity.

OA: A

the failure of the past administration's tax cuts to prevent the economic recession => Reason
tax cuts will not help the country escape from its current economic troubles => Conclusion

tax cut => means common people have to pay less tax. Is it right?

Can someone explain it? I don't understand what this is the answer.
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Join the discussion

by Stacey Koprince » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:30 am
Received a PM asking me to respond.

YellowSapphire, please make sure to cite the source in your original post itself, not just in your PM to me. :) Source, according to YellowSapphire, is a company called Platinum GMAT. (Note: the website is not the source - that's the location. The source is the name of the company or person who made the material.)

Question: weaken

Arg:
(p) last PA, C made lrg tax cuts, still bad econ
(c) now, people who think lrg tax cuts --> better econ: (p) above proves that tax cuts won't fix econ

What I'm thinking: Really? It didn't work before, so it absolutely can't work now? That's extreme. Different circumstances could make the same tactic more likely to work in a different situation. Answer should probably address something like that.

1st pass: decide between "definitely no" and "maybe."
A) different tax cuts proposed. Not thrilled with this b/c it doesn't say that the new tax cuts are any more likely to make a difference, but I'm not going to eliminate yet.
B) tax cuts helped the economy a long time ago. Well, that means they worked at least once. Maybe.
C) okay, so that doesn't necessarily mean the tax cuts are necessary - it could be about the government spending or the "much more." Eliminate.
D) deficit not at issue. Eliminate.
E) governor not an issue. Eliminate.

Between A and B:
Both make it a little less likely that the conclusion is valid. A requires this assumption: it's better for the economy to cut payroll taxes than it is to cut capital gains. B requires this assumption: what applied in the past could also apply today.

The author is already assuming that what applied 8 years ago also applies today (because his supporting evidence is also from the past). We don't actually have to make that assumption ourselves, then - it already exists in the argument. So I'd pick B.

I just looked at the OA and it's A. I would argue with that. I would also like to know what justification was used by the problem's authors for eliminating A. If it is because of the "doesn't necessarily apply today" thing, then that doesn't fly because the basic argument also requires that to be true. If it has something to do with the "prior to industrialization" thing, that's no worse (or better) than switching to a different kind of tax cut, because we have no information about how either of those things would play out in this situation. To get to A from that, you have to assume payroll taxes are better and you have to assume "pre-industrialization" makes the data invalid. So A and B would be equally good at that point.

I don't fully like B either, but it requires less of a stretch than A because of the assumption that already exists in the given argument.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Join the discussion

by YellowSapphire » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:07 am
Thanks Stacey. Actually, I could not understand the tax cut system in option A. Can you please explain what does A convey.
Stacey Koprince wrote: YellowSapphire, please make sure to cite the source in your original post itself, not just in your PM to me. :) Source, according to YellowSapphire, is a company called Platinum GMAT. (Note: the website is not the source - that's the location. The source is the name of the company or person who made the material.)
Yup, thats the way I vex you.


OE
https://www.platinumgmat.com/practice_gm ... ion_id=611

A: This answer identifies that the argument illogically compares apples and oranges (i.e., it compares entirely different types of tax cuts). It is not reasonable to assume that capital gains tax cuts for the ultra-rich will have the same effect as cuts on salary taxes.
B: This answer does not weaken the political commentator's argument since the tax cuts referred to occurred under such radically different circumstances. Further, this answer simply states that tax cuts "helped stem" a recession while the commentator states that tax cuts will "help the country escape" from a recession. Simply helping stem (or slow down) a recession is considerably different (and less impressive) than actually turning around an entire economy in recession.
Yellow Sapphire
Join the discussion

by Stacey Koprince » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:23 am
It is not reasonable to assume that capital gains tax cuts for the ultra-rich will have the same effect as cuts on salary taxes.
It is not reasonable to assume that test takers know anything about the differences between capital gains taxes and salary taxes. The real test would never assume that you already possess this knowledge. If this is the reasoning used to support A as the correct answer... then this is a bad question.
occurred under such radically different circumstances
Again, this presupposes knowledge that the real test would never assume you to have.

I agree, though, that the "helped stem" vs. "help the country escape" is a significant difference in scope.

Not happy with this one in general and wouldn't study it.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Join the discussion